Dear Editor,
Now that the St. Maarten Yacht Club Heineken Regatta has ended, it would seem imperative that everyone involved resolve to do a complete analysis and assessment of the event, given the newspaper wrangling that ensued before and during this "marketing vehicle." Indeed, it was very unfortunate that both the organisers and Government officials exposed all of St. Maarten and visitors to such unwarranted and otherwise racist discourse.
It is an indisputable fact that a regatta of this magnitude is bound to bring social and economic benefits to St. Maarten. In fact, the organisers should be commended for their commitment and dedication in profiling St. Maarten the world over, through this medium, for the past 30 years. The spinoffs are immeasurable, from increased visitor arrivals to the island, to increasing vendor activity, to elevating St. Maarten on the world's stage. And the ultimate reward is additional foreign exchange earnings, since it complements the marketing of tourism as a major source of employment for St. Maarten.
Yet it is ironic that the "bottom line" of the regatta has triggered such a bitter debate between the organisers and tourism officials, who otherwise should be harnessing their resources to further maximising the benefits of the Heineken Regatta. Undoubtedly, tourism is the island's biggest money-spinner, and the Heineken Regatta is one of its principal agents.
To begin to wash our dirty linen in public is certainly not the way to take complete stock of the impact of the regatta on our island's development. And dollars and cents should never be the single yardstick for measurement of its significance, no matter the amount.
It is advisable that all parties concerned come to the table with a strategic plan of action for next year's event, with the common understanding that this is one of our major island parties of invited guests from all over the world. Such meeting of the minds should focus on the long-term benefits of the regatta, and strive to eliminate discriminatory remarks, such as those attributed to Tourism Bureau Chief Regina Labega.
This post mortem should also put to rest any comparative analysis of funds distribution to other national events, by looking at the overall contribution of each to the island economy as a means of prioritising. Failure to do so would give way to another nasty debate, like that which is already brewing with Carnival organisers regarding funds allocation.
Some "parties" are definitely bigger than others. Inevitably, we – black and white, the poor and the rich, organisers and officials, nationals and visitors, Government and opposition – will all dance to the same music without fear or favour, affection or ill-will. Or so it should be.
Richard Barkmeyer
